Recent Articles

AP Photo/Gerald Herbert Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump smiles as he speaks to his supporters at a campaign event in Tampa, Florida, Monday, March 14, 2016. rules-logo-109.jpeg O ne of the most extraordinary moments in Donald Trump’s characteristically hyperbolic primary victory speech in Florida this week was his riff on the “vicious” and “horrible” barrage of “mostly false” TV ads attacking him, which he said carried a price tag of “over $40 million.” The actual total spent by the half-dozen conservative groups assailing Trump was closer to $35.5 million , but Trump was right about one thing: Amidst the ad blitz, his poll numbers went up. Even as he described the “disaster” of presiding over a golf awards ceremony as anti-Trump ads blared in the background, Trump marveled at the ads’ reverse effect: “I don’t understand it.” Neither do many of the GOP leaders, operatives and donors now casting about for a Plan B in their thus-far futile and costly campaign to stop...

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP Images Move to Amend holds a rally at the Supreme Court to "Occupy the Courts" and mark the second anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case on Friday, January 20. 2012. P ublic cynicism about money in politics has become so reflexive and deeply ingrained that the stock refrain from voters, candidates, political experts, election lawyers, and even many reform advocates is “Nothing will ever change.” Public financing? It will never happen. Disclosure for secretive political nonprofits? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will never allow it. A reversal of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling? Pie in the sky. And don’t even dream of expecting the Internal Revenue Service or the Federal Election Commission to actually enforce the rules. Both agencies have decisively demonstrated their utter impotence to police campaign violations. But what if the 2016 election created a surprise opening for democracy...

Albin Lohr-Jones/Sipa via AP Images Following her victories in the Democratic primaries on "Super Tuesday," Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at a rally for her supporters, many representing local unionized labor, at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York City on March 2, 2016. rules-logo-109.jpeg W hen it comes to political money, the 2016 presidential general election campaign appears likely to become a contest between convention and chaos—between a consummate establishment fundraiser and a party renegade who thumbs his nose at big donors and at the consultant class. The rule-breaker, of course, is billionaire businessman Donald Trump, who as a largely-self financed candidate has trumpeted his independence from special interest donors and Wall Street-backed super PACs. Trump’s $25 million campaign account is far smaller than those of his GOP rivals, yet wall-to-wall media coverage has helped him win one primary after another, including seven on Super Tuesday...

AP Photo/Pat Sullivan Republican presidential candidate, Senator Marco Rubio, speaks at a rally Wednesday, February 24, 2016, in Houston. rules-logo-109.jpeg A hallmark of super PACs, the political action committees that may raise unlimited contributions if they act independently from candidates, is that they must publicly disclose their donors. But in this election, super PACs and their backers are proving increasingly adept at skirting the federal disclosure rules, particularly through the use of limited liability companies, or LLCs—a type of business entity that leaves no paper trail and gives political players cover to hide their identities. “The supposed transparency of super PACs is completely undermined to the extent that they receive untraceable contributions from LLCs and other business entities,” says Paul S. Ryan, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center (CLC). The CLC and another watchdog group, Democracy 21, filed two complaints Wednesday with the Federal...

AP Photo/Jim Mone, File In this October 20, 2015 file photo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, on Thursday blasted Scalia for uttering what he called "racist ideas" from the bench of the nation’s highest court. rules-logo-109_2.jpg T he death of Justice Antonin Scalia has both short- and long-term implications for a host of judicial disputes over democracy and election law, in areas from redistricting to voting rights, corruption statutes and campaign-finance rules. Over the long term, a reconstituted Supreme Court could make it easier for reform advocates to reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the 2010 ruling that for many voters has become a symbol of campaign deregulation run amok. While Scalia staunchly defended political disclosure, he was part of a conservative majority under Chief Justice John Roberts that tossed out one election regulation after another,...